When I made my comments, I wasn't referring to you goldorak. ;) I've seen your labors of love for DW. I'm more addressing those that seem to be here for the sole purposes of arrogantly telling us that DW is a failure and why we should hate it. Even though there are many of us who totally love this game. While there are a couple of things I would like to see different with DW, and hope for a 1.04 patch, the whole game is excellent IMHO. I just don't see the "show-stoppers". I still enjoy the game very much, and can easily immerse myself into a very enjoyable modern naval scenario using DW as the engine.

And I'm going to reiterate, nobody has made a game of similar characteristics as DW. Multiple playable naval platforms...all in one sim.

Yeah....what was all this drama about??? :roll:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=100154

This is fairly simple, guys. We cannot release the source-code to DW because there are many non-commercial customers who own the exclusive right to it as the basis of their simulations and analysis tools. If we were to release it, we would be in breach of contract with those customers and lose a great deal of business from it.

With that said, I do my VERY BEST to support the DW mod scene and truly hope to see a graphical modification of the same scope as SCX for this game. I will do everything in my power to support any project which makes DW better.

Indirectly complained.... in other words, that is how you interpretted it, Skybird? Because if you send me a link to the post I can actually DIRECTLY explain to you what I *actually* meant by that post and we can stop "speculating" on what you think I "indirectly" meant... :) I'm always attempting to improve on my communication skills (both written and verbal), so if I portrayed to you or to anyone else that I was somehow disappointed in the support of the DW community, I would like to correct such a misinterpretation... :know:

My assessment of DW's on-line/retail performance is that we sold it through Battlefront because we saw it for what it was, a very specific, high-fidelity, niche product. What we did wrong, was we based assumptions of the size the hardcore naval sim community on an estimated fraction of the sales of Sub Command. That was a mistake... EA was a huge advantage for Sub Command, and their extensive penetration into the retail channels cannot be overstated. EA placed Sub Command in dozens of retailers that may not have placed orders for the product had it not been for the fact that EA was our publisher. Obviously, if your product is not in the retailers, it cannot be purchased... seems simple, right?

That is what SH3 and UbiSoft did well. The game was excellent, the marketing was solid, and EVERY retailer wanted a piece of it. UbiSoft is a "AAA" publisher (just as EA was for us) and their retail presence along with a very high quality product gave SH3 a very good chance to succeed.

And just so that I am not "indirectly" misunderstood... :) I love this community, and the efforts created from it motivate our team to continue working on DW, the v1.04 patch, and beyond.

If there is any news for me to disclose, I promise you all that I will do so. :yep:

I also have a "see I told you so" view on this topic.... I have always been a proponent of being able to create and/or drive new platforms in any game/sim, especially this one. When I first heard that SCS was forbidding this and making any expansion packs dependent on sales, I knew the "boat was sunk" as it were. I thought then and still think now that this was/is a crappy policy. Jamie, please tell me that your aforementioned contract with non-commercial entities is the reason for this - otherwise there's no excuse. Dis-allowing new driveables I think is also a factor in the games lack of success, albeit a lower-order one. I would have loved to have seen what people like Jsteed could have done with DW.

Jamie has already explained many times the reason for the non modding policy of DW.
There is nothing more to add to this particular issue.

Well Goldorak sorry I don't remember offhand. Unfortunately my life is not totally comprised of DW....:cry: But you can't argue that the issue is helping matters with respect to interest in the product.

To be honest I don't think that modding would resolve the low sales of DW.
Modding is a plus, that caters to the hard core gamers, but the average player that buys DW couldn't care less about using an arleigh burke instead of a frigate or a ticonderoga cruiser.

The contracts are with the US DoD, I think there is some stuff in the source code which is DoD specific and which is maybe deactivated for the retail release.

It's not just about "favorite" platforms. New playables would allow the game to expand to cover a greater battlespace to include new scenarios and new tactical problems. Not being able to expand is a HUGE hit on the quality of the game.

Falcon 4--another high-realism sim geared towards a niche market--had to deal with a lot of bugs when it was owned by MicroProse, but extensive modding was around and the community was able to improve on and expand the game dramatically. A lot of the modding work involved new flight models and cockpits for new player-controlled aircraft. They kept it alive for years and eventually produced a product far superior to anything MP was able or willing to do. I strongly doubt that any version of F4 would be popular today if not for the efforts of the modding community.

Speaking only in terms of the interest in the quality of the product, extensive modding is crucial to picking up the slack when the producing company does not have the reasources to fully develop the game. Obviously, for other business interests, that can't happen here, but it does hurt. A lot.

Yes, but a lor of the work done on F4 was bugfixing (especially after the leak) and extra features. Extra planes? I'm not sure it was so important, as many people went to Allied Force even though it is less mod-friendly.

More significant may be that F4 simply doesn't have a competitor. Jane's F/A-18 does well for realism (especially compared to pre-leak F4), but lacks a dynamic campaign. LOMAC has more flyables, but is generally considered behind in realism.


For the graphics, I think DW is more than good enough (I think Fast Attack was good enough for subs, destroyer demands a bit more of course). Of course, 32-bit would be nice to avoid banding. The more annoying things are the gameplay bugs (dipping sonar gives incorrect bearings, weird sub movement and slow depth changes, mines not working right, DEMON/narrowband issue,... Some of that may be partially fixed by user mods, others will require patching.

I am sure that Jamie and the team are very interested in making this the best game ever, but it is the people that hold the corporate purse strings that will decide. what will happen.I am sure that having looked at their sales and the investment needed to bring it to where we wish, the money is better spent elsewhere within the scs group.Supporting a small group of gamers does not pay the bills
The gaming side is a very small part of the company and I would be surprised if we see a new game from scs in the near future.If I was the ceo of scs I would allow the community to mod the graphics.I am sure that the non-commercial customer to which Jamie refers would not mind that.As others have said before the look of the game is what attracts most gamers, not the quality of the sim engine.The current graphics (3d) are poor.I looked last night at some of the scx models that have been produced-they are excellent compared to some of the Dw ones especially my t-boat!
Jamie I really wish that whoever runs your company lets you have a budget to fix all the bugs and allow this game to achieve its full potential but I know that in a corporate world everything has to be zero cost/maximum profit!
PS how long does your other customer hold proprietry rights for on the software??

Here's a wild idea...
Perhaps Sonalysts should speak to EA about doing a ww2 subsim, they may be interested in doing it based on how successful SH3 has been for Ubisoft. This would perhaps mean Sonalysts could get access to a better 3D engine from EA and the higher sales/profit of a ww2 game could provide the funding for the development of DW extensions/sequel. Based on the DW model with surface and undersea platforms and multi station multiplayer, something even SH4 may not have.

"Nah" you say EA, would never do another sim not in a million years, well actually, if you think that, you are wrong... they are doing one right now! in an even more niche market than naval sims?... EA/Kuju Rail Simulator. So who knows what they might be open to...

Some competition for Ubisoft might be a good thing and encourage a rebirth for sims. And I for one would love to see what Jamie & crew could with WWII.

No need to do another wwII sub simulation, the Silent Hunter brand is already out there.
What we need as a figure of speach is a friggin' modern naval simulation based on a graphics engine that goes beyond SH III and SH IV.
Perphaps a game with a dynamic campaign also.
All the + of DW and a next generation graphics engine (UE3 perhaps :hmm: ) combined for the ultimate in modern naval warfare.
Now that would be absolutely kickass. :|\\
Having Ubisoft as publisher could be a good thing, EA I'm not so sure....:shifty:

Ok here's another wild idea... Sonalysts could contact Ubisoft & AGS and discuss the restart/rewriting of the aborted Harpoon 4 project in full 3D. With their naval knowledge and the skills acquired in the development of DW and FC they above all others have the know how to pull it off. As we know the Harpoon brand has a huge following and has been used in the past as a naval training tool. Thus Sonalysts would become well known the mass market place and be able to offer an adapted version to the navies of the world for training.

There is no DEMON/narrowband issue!

You know... one of the things I like about Harpoon is that the graphics aren't what it's about. The databases, to me, are the real draw, and the demand for model ships from almost every nation in the world would make the DB expansions a lot more difficult. Hence a graphics intensive Harpoon strikes me as kind of lame.

Besides, I thought that was the idea behind Fleet Command?

:damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:
Don't'cha just love it when they pass judgment without even R'ing TFM?

Already tried... Contacted Larry Bond directly, even (since he is still the owner of the IP, I believe). :cry:

Hi Jamie,
It's nice to know you have the odd "wild idea" too!... Perhaps Firaxis would be interested in outsourcing an update of Red Storm Rising or Silent Service. I believe Sid Meier has recently acquired the rights from Atari It's a shame they have all those great combat sim franchises and have not yet made any move on them. Perhaps they would be interested in teaming up with a developer with sim experience...

Despite Silent Service coming above Railroad Tycoon in Firaxis own "what should we remake next poll." they made "Railroads!" instead. "Silent Service- the cold war" has a nice ring to it dont you think...


Stephen

This seems like a lot of overthinking going on, here.

[overly blunt]

You are exactly correct - this is 'very specific, niche market' product. Not to be rude, but...why did you price it as a 'general interest' product, then? For $60, most users would expect a Joe Gamer-friendly graphically-intense action game.

If you know you are only going to sell 100 copies, or 500, or 1000...charge appropriately!

The 'hardcore' wargame crowd has been dealing with this demand problem for years. I assume you are familiar with GMT? How about what they are doing with their "GMT 500"? Each year, new games keep getting published that are, at launch, already paid into a profit margin.

What needs to happen is you need to pitch a realistic set of goals for a DW add-on. What ships will be added, missions, etc. Just ballpark figures that are realistic. Mock up a screenshot or two. And start taking pre-orders. When you hit the number you need to make publishing it worthwhile (and it MAY take years), THEN make the move to publish.

Do this for 3 or 4 different products, and let which gets made be determined by who DOES buy into it. And certainly - CERTAINLY - price it accordingly! Avalanche Press took pre-orders on their "Leyte Gulf" game...at $200 a pop!...and got enough pre-orders at that price to make a run on publishing it.

Making a niche game for a niche-within-a-niche market and then pricing it to only able to be successful with mainstream appeal...seems a recipe for failure.

[/overly blunt]

Hey Jamie,here's a thought. How bout doing a surface combat game covering the years 1898 to perhaps around 1930 (to allow the use of the ships that were either scrapped,used for target practice or converted to carriers due to the Washington Treaty.).

The "Big Gun" era was to me one of the more interesting phases of naval warfare. And there hasn't been a good game on that subject in years...at least not one that would easily play on XP or Vista.

It wouldn't need great graphics...just high realism,a very large selection of ships,(Hence the low graphics),a good selection of pre-made scenarios (Refighting Jutland would be a dream for me...*lol*) and a good scenario builder tool.

I know no one will ever make that kind of a game...but I can dream can't I? :D